One sustainability practice that has gained significant traction among food retail and foodservice operations is the sourcing and use of local food products (Campbell, DiPietro, & Remar, 2014; NRA, 2014). It is important to note however, that just because a product is grown or raised locally does not automatically qualify it as being sustainable. Though local food is commonly considered sustainable because of its low carbon
footprint and support for a local economy, there is no guarantee that just because a food is local it automatically qualifies as being sustainable. However, it is more about the agenda and ethos of the system, and the scale that makes the use of local food a
sustainable practice (Sloan et al., 2013). Generally, the use of locally-sourced food in a service operation is considered a sustainable practice in that it touches upon all three aspects of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental responsibility—all of which will be discussed at length shortly. But as is the case with the term sustainability, there are several definitions and uses for the term “local” (Sharma, Gregoire, &
Though commonly considered as being either raised/grown within 100 miles of the establishment where it is sold, or within the same state (Restaurant, Food & Beverage Market Research Handbook, 2014-2015), definitions of local food can vary by
organization and enterprise. Many national and local organizations, such as the Green Restaurant Association, define local food as being within a 100-mile radius around an operation, whereas “regional” food is expanded to a 300-mile radius (Green Restaurant Association, 2012). The 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act states that for a food to be considered local or regional it must not travel more than 400 miles from its origin, or can originate from the state in which it was grown (Martinez et al., 2010), which is the definition used in the current study.
The use of local food over non-local food products, which includes wine and craft beers, as well as meat, vegetables and fruit, can benefit both regional and national
economies. In addition to aiding in the economic development of rural areas (Marsden, Banks, & Bristow, 2000; Martinez et al., 2010)and helping to capture tourist dollars (Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Getz, & Brown, 2006; Hall, Sharples, Mitchell, Macionis, & Cambourne, 2003; Seo, Kim, Oh, & Yun, 2013), buying locally supports local businesses and farmers in the area, bolstering economic vitality (Martinez et al., 2010; Sloan et al., 2013; Starr, Card, Benepe, Auld, Lamm, Smith, & Wilken, 2003).
Supporting local food and community food systems also has significant social benefits. While supporting local businesses can help boost a community economically, community-based food systems and the buying of local foods can also link producers and consumers together, ultimately strengthening community bonds as well as culinary traditions and culture (DeLind, 2002; Feenstra, 2002; Hinrichs, 2003; Sloan et al., 2013;
Starr et al., 2003). Consuming locally-grown food and supporting a local food system can also have health benefits. Though there is no empirical evidence to support any
nutritional differences per se, local foods are fresher, minimally processed, and usually of higher quality when in season, and burn less greenhouse gases for their distribution (Martinez et al., 2010).
The reduced environmental impact from using local foods can also be substantial. Supporting local/community food systems usually involves utilizing smaller, independent farms (Starr et al., 2003). By supporting smaller farm productions, the pressure put on large-scale agriculture is greatly reduced, subsequently minimizing erosion and soil degradation, reducing mono-cropping and bolstering biodiversity, and reducing the amount of water, fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels that are used so heavily in large- scale agricultural practices (Broadway & Stull, 2010; Martinez et al., 2010). Also, by purchasing local foods there is a drastic reduction in carbon emissions that are released when shipping food products long distances (Sloan et al., 2013). This concept of
associating environmental and social costs with the production and transportation of food is often referred to as “food miles.” The more food miles a food item accrues in its journey from field to plate, the more environmental and social impact it has (Sloan et al., 2013).
As an example, consider the environmental impact of a foodservice operation in the eastern United States buying a case of apples grown in Chile because they are out of season at home. Not only are the labor and land management practices less regulated and less transparent in several export oriented economies, but the social, economic, and environmental impact associated with harvesting, packaging, storing, and shipping the
fruit thousands of miles with constant refrigeration is enormous (Maloni & Brown, 2006; Smith, 2008). Sourcing food locally essentially means sourcing food that is available and in season within a relatively close distance to the place it is ultimately consumed, thus limiting social and economic impact by lowering the number of food miles that the food travels to get to the end user (Sloan et al., 2013).
Within the foodservice industry, consumers have ranked a restaurant’s use of locally and sustainably sourced food as one of the most preferred attributes of a restaurant (Elan, 2009; NRA 2013-2014). It is generally understood that consumers prefer locally- sourced food as it is perceived to be more fresh and of higher quality, as well as being healthier, supportive of local business, and better for the environment (NRN, 2014a). Within industry-based research on local food, much of it involves challenges to sourcing and supply-chain management, price and pricing issues, and innovation (Brooks, 2013; Deutsch, 2012; NRNa, 2014; Thorn, 2012). One emergent trend that is a direct offshoot of sourcing locally is the concept of “hyper-local.” Hyper-local sourcing can refer to a restaurant that has its own garden which directly supplies produce for the menu, foraging for food in close proximity to the restaurant where it will be prepared and served, or an exclusive supply contract between a small, local farm and a restaurant (NRA, 2013b; Thorn, 2012).
There is a variety of academic research on local food and the research has been approached from different disciplines, ranging from hospitality and marketing to agribusiness and rural studies. From an agribusiness perspective Carpio &Isengildina‐ Massa (2009) evaluated and measured consumers’ willingness to pay for state-sponsored locally-grown products. Using a randomized telephone survey, they asked respondents
hypothetical questions regarding their willingness to pay for various products that had characteristics or attributes of being locally grown—specifically grown in-state in this circumstance. If consumers demonstrated a preference for these hypothetical local
products, they were then asked to choose a percentage for which they would be willing to pay more (0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, and 50%) compared to the same product produced out of state.
The study found that at an equal price, consumers strongly preferred the local products (produce and animal) over the out-of-state products and were willing to pay up to 5% more. However, as the price premium for local foods increased, consumers’ willingness to pay for local vs. non-local declined significantly. Overall, results showed that consumers were willing to pay an average premium of 27% more for local produce and 23% more for local animal products relative to out-of-state products. Premiums for local products were influenced by socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and income, as well as by perceived product quality, desire to support the local economy, and frequent patronage to local farmer’s markets (Carpio &Isengildina‐Massa, 2009).
Looking at packaged goods in a retail setting, Onozaka & Mcfadden (2011) used conjoint analysis to examine the effects of labelling food items with sustainable
production claims such as organic, local, fair trade, and green, and location claims like country/state/region of origin on perceived value of the food items. Using data collected from a sample of grocery shoppers who participated in an online survey questionnaire, results showed that consumers differentiated some production claims to a further extent if information about production location was provided. There were no significant
inconclusive results regarding consumers’ willingness to pay for products labeled as organic. However, a significant amount of consumers stated they were willing to pay a premium for another type of sustainable product claim: reducing carbon footprint and associated food miles. In terms of consumer preference for locally labeled products and other items with production location claims, it was determined that consumers had a strong positive preference for locally grown products in comparison to domestically grown products, and were willing to pay a higher price premium (9% to 15% more) for locally grown products (Onozaka & Mcfadden, 2011).
In a similar study, Darby et al. (2008) also used conjoint analysis to explore two different issues of consumer demand for local produce in a retail setting: the geographical extent of what encompasses or qualifies as being “local,” and how the value that
consumers place on local food differs from other features that are often associated with locally produced foods—such as a farm’ size or product freshness.Results showed that respondents often placed similar value on products that were produced “in-state” and “nearby,” and that consumers’ willingness to pay for a locally produced item was independent from the values that were associated with freshness or farm type and size. Though respondents did not really distinguish between “grown nearby” and grown in a specified state, individuals both preferred and were willing to pay up to 50% more for products that were locally grown as opposed to just grown in the United States. Results also showed a positive relationship with willingness to pay when there was a presence of a freshness guarantee and that a locally grown product was perceived independently from a product with a freshness guarantee. Overall, this research showed that consumer
independent of other characteristics or value claims often associated with locally produced foods, such as greater freshness and being supportive of independent small businesses (Darby et al., 2008).
In the context of a restaurant specifically, Sharma, Gregoire, and Strohbehn (2009) assessed the potential process and production costs an independent restaurant might incur when using locally produced food versus sourcing food products through a national supplier. Using a convenience sample of ten restaurants in the Midwestern United States, Sharma et al. (2009) used a novel application of the nonparametric, linear programming-based technique called data envelopment analysis (DEA) to measure the efficiency of restaurant units in the presence of multiple inputs and outputs. Results showed the cost differences between sourcing locally and sourcing from a national supplier were insignificant. There was no statistically significant difference in the cost of local food versus nonlocal food ingredients and the differences in delivery time between local and national suppliers was negligible (Sharma et al., 2009).
Vieregge, Scanlon, & Huss (2007) looked at how Swiss consumers reacted to the use of local food in a globally-branded, quick-service restaurant (McDonald’s) and the subsequent effects of using local food as a marketing tool. Using a sample of 362
participants who were interviewed and completed a survey questionnaire, results showed that the use of local food products in a globally-branded quick-service restaurant can be an effective method for improving brand image with both local and non-local customers. Consumers appreciated and supported the use of local products, and it positively
influenced their perception of the restaurant and willingness to spread positive word of mouth. However, some items and their use of local food were price sensitive, with more
than half of the respondents stating they would not pay more for a “Big Mac” if local foods were used instead of the standard non-local ingredients. But in general, the results supported McDonald’s decision to use local products and the positive outcomes
associated (Vieregge et al., 2007).
Whether it be in response to overwhelming consumer demands and pressures to adopt sustainable practices or in recognition of its own impact on the environment, society, and the economy, sustainability initiatives in the foodservice industry have increased significantly over the last 15-20 years (Choi & Parsa, 2006). However, the research on actual consumer behavior as it relates to supporting sustainable practices in foodservice is still developing. Now that consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards restaurant sustainability initiatives have become fairly well understood, the need to understand their actual behavior becomes more pertinent.
Research has shown that upscale casual restaurant consumers generally have high perceptions of sustainable restaurant practices in the United States (DiPietro et al., 2012; Myung et al., 2012; Namkung & Jang, 2013; Schubert et al., 2010), especially as it relates to the use of local food (Lillywhite & Simonsen, 2014; NRA, 2014, NRN 204a, 2014b), and state they are willing to pay more for these green practices (DiPietro et al., 2012; Dutta et al., 2008; Schubert et al., 2010). Given this understanding of consumer demand for local food and sustainable practices, many foodservice operations have begun to shift substantial resources to incorporating more sustainability initiatives into their operating strategies and subsequently marketing that to the consumer (NRN, 2014a, 2014b).
But what is less known, and an area where a paucity of research exists, is if the same consumers who are saying they favor sustainable restaurant practices and the use of local food are actually purchasing local food items in the restaurant and supporting sustainable practices via their purchase behavior. In order to ensure that this shift in operational focus is working, and determine if marketing sustainability is having a positive effect on consumer purchase behavior, research needs to look at the actual outcome of purchase behavior. The current study addresses this issue specifically.
The following section of the literature review will discuss the supporting theories framing this research, proceeded by a description of the dependent and independent variables under examination in the current study.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.7 THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND THEORY OF REASONED ACTION
One of the most prolifically used theories that examines the relationship between attitude and behavior is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1974, 1991), which is a direct descendent of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974, 1975) (see Figure 2.2). The TRA suggests that before engaging in a
decision, individuals consider the consequences of alternate behaviors and then choose to actually perform the behavior that is most associated with a desirable outcome (Bang, Ellinger, Hadjimarcou, & Traichal, 2000). Therefore, according to the model, behaviors are determined by a person’s intention to perform that behavior, and that those intentions are derived from two factors: attitude towards the behavior in consideration, and
(Bagozzi, 1992; Bang et al., 2000). The TRA gained great acclaim for its strength in explaining attitude-behavior relationships in a variety of contexts (Bagozzi, 1992).
Figure 2.2 Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior (in Bagozzi, 1992, p.179).
However, Bagozzi (1992) makes an important caveat about the TRA and explains how it adapted into the TPB:
A key assumption of the theory of reasoned action is that it addresses behaviors under volitional control, by which the authors meant the following: ‘People can easily perform these behaviors if they are inclined to do so (Ajzen 1985, p, 12). [W]hen one is asked about performing a behavior that is completely under one's
own volitional control, one typically believes that one can, and will, do whatever one intends or tries to do (Fishbein and Stasson 1990, p. 177).’ In other words, a volitional behavior is an action that a person is able and intends to perform, and whose execution no factors prevent. Fishbein and Ajzen (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) are clear in their requirement that the theory of reasoned action applies only to volitional behaviors. They state explicitly that the theory does not apply to attitudes toward objects, people, or institutions, to nonvolitional behaviors or goals, or to outcomes. (p.180)
It is because of this discrepancy in volitional behaviors that the TRA was adapted into the TPB (Ajzen, 1974, 1991), which added the construct of perceived behavioral control to the predictive model (See Figure 2.2). As Ajzen (1991, p.183) describes, “of greater psychological interest than actual control […] is the perception of behavioral control and its impact on intentions and actions.” Perceived behavioral control can be defined as “the person’s belief as to how easy or difficult performance of the behavior is likely to be” (Ajzen & Madden, 1986, p. 457 in Bagozzi, 1992, p.280). The TPB has become one the most popular and widely employed theories in behavioral research, and is used across many social science disciplines.
One of the most seminal research articles relating to environmental behavior that is modeled on the TPB is Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera’s (1987) meta-analysis of 128 environmental behavior articles. The analysis identified the most recurrent and prominent factors and variables influencing environmentally responsible behavior. Their results showed cognitive variables: those pertaining to knowledge of the environment such as awareness and concern; psycho-social variables: including personality characteristics,
perceptions, attitudes, locus of control, economic orientation, personal responsibility and verbal commitment; demographic variables including gender, age and income; and other experimental interventions were the variables most strongly associated with pro-
environmental behavior. They conclude that intention to act was merely an artifact of a number of other variables acting in conjunction with each other. However, the model falls short in explanatory power with the lack of identification of barriers and lack of depth when describing the situational factors.
Overall, the TPB and TRA has been the most applied theory used for explaining and predicting pro-environmental and sustainable behavior. But as Bagozzi (1992) notes and as discussed previously, the TPB and TRA have limitations in applicability and explanatory power in certain circumstances, and can be limited by its lack of accountability for situational and contextual variables. Though much of the
environmental attitude-behavior models and theories have been grounded firmly by the TPB and TRA, in light of the potential limitations other theories and models have modified and adapted the TPB to better explain and predict sustainable behavior, and consider variables beyond attitudes.
Given its prominence in consumer behavior research and for its relative efficacy in accounting for the variance in behavior outcomes (Armitage & Conner, 2001), the TPB is used as one of the primary theoretical frameworks guiding the current study. In an upscale casual restaurant setting, variations on the measures of consumers’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control will be used to predict and explain purchase behavior—specifically the purchase of a local food item from the daily special menu. The following section reviews some of the other attitude-behavior theories that are
often applied when examining sustainable and pro-environmental behaviors, and are used as part of the theoretical frameworks guiding the current study.